What Does The Federal Response To Texas Floods Indicate About FEMA's Future?

Summary

Podcast Summary: "What Does The Federal Response To Texas Floods Indicate About FEMA's Future?"

Podcast: The NPR Politics Podcast
Host: Tamara Keith
Guests: Domenico Montanaro (Senior Political Editor and Correspondent), Rebecca Hersher (NPR Climate Correspondent)
Release Date: July 14, 2025

---

Introduction

In the July 14, 2025 episode of The NPR Politics Podcast, host Tamara Keith delves into the federal government's response to the recent devastating floods in Texas and examines what this response signals about the future of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Joined by political editor Domenico Montanaro and climate correspondent Rebecca Hersher, the episode navigates the complexities of disaster response amid evolving political landscapes and escalating climate threats.

---

Understanding Federal Disaster Response

Rebecca Hersher kicks off the discussion by outlining the standard procedures the federal government follows in the wake of a natural disaster.

"For really big disasters that have some warning, like hurricanes, the federal government actually, like pre positions people. It sends people to the region, you know, water and food and medicine as well, and rescue teams."
— Rebecca Hersher [01:47]

She explains that the process typically involves local authorities requesting a disaster declaration from the president, which then unlocks various federal aid funds for infrastructure repair, individual assistance, and mitigation efforts to prevent future disasters.

---

Federal Response to the Texas Floods

When addressing the specifics of the Texas floods, Rebecca highlights discrepancies in the federal response compared to standard procedures.

"There wasn't a lot of warning. So there weren't any federal resources pre positioned."
— Rebecca Hersher [03:02]

Key points include:

• Delayed Rescue Efforts: A federal water rescue and recovery team was not dispatched promptly by FEMA, the reasons for which remain unclear.

• Funding Allocation Issues: Initially, only funds for repairing public buildings were approved, leaving individual survivors without immediate assistance. This selective funding approach deviates from typical disaster responses where individual aid is expedited.

• Mitigation Funding Uncertainty: Funds intended for future disaster mitigation have not been approved, adding to the uncertainty surrounding FEMA's operational priorities.

Rebecca notes the broader context of FEMA's funding backlog:

"There's actually a huge backlog of that funding for all sorts of disasters all over the country since the President took office. In general, this White House has not been approving that money."
— Rebecca Hersher [04:15]

---

President Trump's Stance and Administration Policies

The discussion shifts to President Trump's response during his visit to Texas and his administration's overarching goals concerning FEMA.

"These are pro Trump areas. They don't want people who are pro Trump to get the assistance and created sort of a conspiracy with not a lot of truth behind it that FEMA wasn't trying to help folks in those areas."
— Domenico Montanaro [08:08]

Key insights include:

• Personal Engagement: President Trump, accompanied by First Lady Melania Trump, engaged with affected families, showcasing a human side but also facing tough questions from reporters about preventive measures.

• Political Tensions: The President's approach has introduced a heightened sense of partisanship into disaster response, contrasting with previous administrations that typically treated such matters as bipartisan issues.

• FEMA's Future: Trump has previously expressed intentions to phase out FEMA, advocating for a shift of responsibilities back to state governments. However, the effective deployment of funds during the Texas floods complicates this narrative.

Rebecca further elaborates on the conflicting signals within the administration:

"Governor Greg Abbott of Texas is on that review council, as is the top emergency official in Texas. And so I think there's, like, definitely a lot of tension, kind of a disconnect as well, between these Texas officials, who on one hand are saying, we are really grateful with what FEMA is doing... and on the other hand saying, this is an agency that's so broken that it needs to be eliminated."
— Rebecca Hersher [06:17]

---

Impact of Political Decisions on Disaster Preparedness

The guests discuss the broader implications of political decisions on FEMA's capacity to handle increasing natural disasters, especially in the context of climate change.

"FEMA as it is currently set up, really doesn't work with climate change."
— Rebecca Hersher [11:12]

Key Points:

• Increased Frequency and Severity of Disasters: The United States has seen a significant rise in the number and cost of disasters, with billion-dollar events skyrocketing from $58 billion in 1980 to over half a trillion dollars in recent years.

• FEMA's Limitations: Current FEMA structures and funding are inadequate to manage the escalating demands posed by frequent and severe disasters.

• Legislative Responses: Two bills in Congress aim to streamline FEMA's funding processes, reducing bureaucratic delays. However, the Trump administration's agenda to decentralize FEMA threatens to undermine these efforts.

Domenico highlights the historical shift in bipartisan cooperation:

"That never used to be the kind of thing that just went through the political washing machine and spin cycle... but now with Trump in the White House, it seems all about politics."
— Domenico Montanaro [08:08]

---

State Preparedness and the Future Without FEMA

Rebecca delves into the challenges states would face if FEMA were to be dismantled or significantly restructured.

"These are really, really big events. And if you're a really big state, you might be able to find most of the money. But most of the states that get hit with these things over and over... do not have the budget to handle this."
— Rebecca Hersher [10:36]

Concerns include:

• Financial Constraints: Many states, especially those frequently hit by disasters like those on the Gulf Coast, lack the financial resources to independently manage large-scale disasters without federal assistance.

• Mitigation Efforts Undermined: Federal grants that previously supported preventive infrastructure—such as flood warning systems and drainage upgrades—have been cut, leaving communities vulnerable.

• Potential for Increased Casualties: Without timely federal response, the loss of life and property could escalate during future disasters.

Rebecca underscores the urgency of reinvesting in FEMA or creating robust alternatives to ensure effective disaster management.

---

Conclusion

The episode concludes with a sobering reflection on the intersection of politics, climate change, and disaster preparedness. As Texas grapples with the aftermath of severe flooding, the federal response—or lack thereof—serves as a bellwether for FEMA's future role in national disaster management. The tension between federal oversight and state-level control remains at the forefront of political discourse, with significant implications for how the United States will handle the growing challenges posed by climate-induced natural disasters.

"If you don't respond to a disaster in a timely way, you don't get to get that back later."
— Rebecca Hersher [11:12]

The episode effectively encapsulates the complexities of federal disaster response in a polarized political environment, highlighting the critical need for effective, bipartisan approaches to safeguard communities against the increasing threats of climate change.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Rebecca Hersher [01:47]: "For really big disasters that have some warning, like hurricanes, the federal government actually, like pre positions people. It sends people to the region, you know, water and food and medicine as well, and rescue teams."

• Rebecca Hersher [04:15]: "There's actually a huge backlog of that funding for all sorts of disasters all over the country since the President took office. In general, this White House has not been approving that money."

• Domenico Montanaro [08:08]: "These are pro Trump areas. They don't want people who are pro Trump to get the assistance and created sort of a conspiracy with not a lot of truth behind it that FEMA wasn't trying to help folks in those areas."

• Rebecca Hersher [11:12]: "FEMA as it is currently set up, really doesn't work with climate change."

---

Conclusion

This episode of The NPR Politics Podcast provides an incisive analysis of the federal response to the Texas floods and its broader implications for FEMA's future. By intertwining expert insights with firsthand reporting, Tamara Keith and her guests shed light on the urgent need for reform in disaster management policies amidst a changing climate and a shifting political landscape.

Transcript

[Unknown Speaker]

The House of Representatives has approved a White House request to claw back two years of previously approved funding for public media. The rescissions package now moves on to the Senate. This move poses a serious threat to local stations and public media as we know it. Please take a stand for public media [e-mail] thank you.

[David]

Hi, this is David from Fayetteville, Georgia. I am running lines for our community theater's Shakespeare in the Parks Project.

[Tamara Keith]

This podcast was recorded at 1:05pm on Monday, July 14.

[David]

Things may have changed by the time you hear it, but I could a tale unfold whose lightest word would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood, and make thy two eyes like stars start from their spheres.

[Rebecca Hersher]

Okay. Wow.

[David]

Enjoy the show.

[Tamara Keith]

Okay. Pop quiz. Which Shakespearean work was that from?

[Domenico Montanaro]

Oh, no, that is, I think, Hamlet.

[Tamara Keith]

All right.

[Domenico Montanaro]

We'll see.

[Tamara Keith]

We'll find out when our much smarter listeners write in to tell us how wrong or right we were. Hey there. It's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House.

[Domenico Montanaro]

And I'm Domenico Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent.

[Tamara Keith]

And NPR climate correspondent Rebecca Hersher is here. Hello.

[Rebecca Hersher]

Hi.

[Tamara Keith]

So today on the show, we are looking at the flooding in Texas and how the federal government has responded to the crisis. Rebecca, I want to start with how the federal government usually responds to a natural disaster. Can you just walk us through the process of generally how this works when there's a tragedy like this?

[Rebecca Hersher]

Yes, it is. It's actually weirdly complicated, but I'll try to make it simple. So for really big disasters that have some warning, like hurricanes, the federal government actually, like pre positions people. Like it sends people to the region, you know, water and food and medicine as well, and rescue teams. That doesn't apply here because you don't get a lot of warning with flash floods, but it is a big part of a federal response in a lot of cases. And then after that sort of initial police and fire, you know, local folks on the ground part, the governor or the, you know, territorial government or tribal government has to ask the president to declare a disaster. And in that ask, they have to ask for specific types of help from the federal government. So, like money to help repair roads and public buildings. Then there's like a pot of money for individual survivors to get like, food and clothing, pay for hotels and stuff like that. And then there's a third pot of money to, like upgrade things so the next disaster isn't so damaging. And then the president can say yes or no to each pot and that's when the real federal response starts. So that's usually actually like a couple days after the disaster itself unless you've pre positioned.

[Tamara Keith]

So what happened this time in Texas with these floods?

[Rebecca Hersher]

Some of the things I just said happened. Some of them did not. There wasn't a lot of warning. So there weren't any federal resources pre positioned. The state did do something that happens a lot of the time, which is that they were overwhelmed and so they asked for help from neighboring states and they got it. So like there were rescue teams that came from neighboring states that will actually be reimbursed by the federal government. So that's technically sort of the beginning of the federal response. Sort of. And then the governor of Texas asked for a disaster declaration from the President which he got that unlocked money. There were some weird things that happened though. Like there was a federal water rescue and recovery team that wasn't sent right away by fema. It's unclear why. The President also initially only approved money for repairing public buildings. There wasn't any money for individual survivors initially. It took about a, for that individual assistance to be approved, which is a little strange compared to other major disasters, maybe a little slow, especially since the President kept touting all the help that was being sent to Texas.

[Tamara Keith]

And then what about the funds to mitigate future disasters that you mentioned normally go as part of this?

[Rebecca Hersher]

It's actually unclear whether those have been approved at all. They certainly haven't started to flow yet. And I should say there's actually a huge backlog of that funding for all sorts of disasters all over the country since the President took office. In general, this White House has not been approving that money. Domenico.

[Tamara Keith]

Let's talk about the President's response and how the President has been talking about this. He was in Texas on Friday. He was clearly very affected by meeting with the families of people who, who died in, in the flooding. How is he responding to questions about the federal response?

[Domenico Montanaro]

Well, I mean it's hard not to be affected when you go and see what's happened in these areas. The stories that have come out have been absolutely heart wrenching. Those of us with kids think about sending our kids to camps and you know, being more concerned about whether they are having a decent time and they're not gonna call home to try to have us pick them up. Right?

[Tamara Keith]

Yeah.

[Domenico Montanaro]

This is the last thing any parent would wanna be seeing or thinking about. And you know, the President went there with the first Lady, Melania Trump, who doesn't usually make a lot of these kind appearances. But things sort of went off the rails a little bit when reporters, local reporters are asking about, you know, whether or not there should have been anything done differently in the run up to this, whether there should have been a siren system or better cell service and things like that so that people could be warned more in advance. And the president essentially just said, only an evil person would ask a question like that. And it makes it difficult because traditionally, these things are kind of bipartisan affairs. You try to figure out what went wrong, try to figure out how to get funding to those states to make things better. And that's not what happens here. It all seems to be boiled down to partisanship.

[Tamara Keith]

President Trump had previously talked about wanting to phase out fema.

[Rebecca Hersher]

We want to wean off of fema, and we want to bring it down to the state level a little bit, like education. We're moving it back to the states.

[Tamara Keith]

Do we know whether the federal response in Texas is indicative of how the Trump administration wants FEMA to work going forward?

[Rebecca Hersher]

I would say it complicates that stated goal of the president, because what's happening is that the federal government is. Is spending and will spend a huge amount of money on this flood response. And the Texas leadership, you know, the governor and the emergency manager there are praising Trump for that. You know, they're giving him this positive feedback that says, thank you so much for using FEMA to help us in our time of need. And one thing that's really complicated about that is that actually, in the president's quest to phase out fema, he has appointed this review council that's supposed to eliminate the agency, basically come up with plans to give a lot of FEMA's role back to states. And Governor Greg Abbott of Texas is on that review council, as is the top emergency official in Texas. And so I think there's, like, definitely a lot of tension, kind of a disconnect as well, between these Texas officials, who on one hand are saying, we are really grateful with what FEMA is doing. We couldn't do it without you. And on the other hand saying, this is an agency that's so broken that it needs to be eliminated. And it's really unclear what comes next after that.

[Tamara Keith]

And I will say that from the side of covering the president, he has now been asked several times, do you still want to phase out fema? Or, you know, people in his administration have been asked that, and the answer is not clear. The answer is more or less, we're working on this disaster right now. And so I think we don't know what exactly the vision is and how this plays into it.

[Domenico Montanaro]

And again, I mean, this came back from the campaign in the first place, from the 2024 presidential campaign when you had the flooding in North Carolina. And Trump really used that as a political cudgel over Joe Biden to say, oh, you know, FEMA's not doing a good enough job. These are pro Trump areas. They don't want people who are pro Trump to get the assistance and created sort of a conspiracy with not a lot of truth behind it that FEMA wasn't trying to help folks in those areas. And now the shoe's on the other foot because Trump is in office. There's something that's happening in a red state. And so you have people in those states, the leadership in those states, Republicans in those states, saying that the federal government's doing a very good job. And, you know, this never used to be the kind of thing that was something that just went through the political, you know, washing machine and spin cycle because it wasn't that long ago, for example, that Ron DeSantis, who couldn't be more opposite of Joe Biden, you know, as governor of Florida, was working with Joe Biden and praising Joe Biden because of what happened in Florida with Hurricane Ian. And that's what it used to be like and not so much anymore with Trump in the White House and, you know, really making it seemingly all about politics. How you view how an agency runs seems to be put through this lens of partisanship.

[Tamara Keith]

All right. Well, we are going to take a quick break and we will have more in a moment.

[Unknown Speaker]

This message comes from Saatva. What does it take to be the goat for athletes? It's more than just talent and dedication. It takes the quality sleep necessary for recovery sleep, which has also been proven to improve athletic abilities and increase energy. Every Saatva is designed for that kind of sleep, which is why they were named Best luxury mattress by sleepfoundation.org save $200 on $1,000 or more at saatva.com.

NPR this summer on Planet Money Summer school, we're learning about political economy. We're getting into the nitty gritty of what government does with things like trade, taxes, immigration and healthcare.

[Rebecca Hersher]

So politics and economics, which are taught separately, they shouldn't be separated at all. I think you have to understand one.

[Domenico Montanaro]

To really appreciate the other.

[Unknown Speaker]

So what is the right amount of government in our lives? Tune into Planet Money Summer School from npr, wherever you get your podcasts.

[Rebecca Hersher]

At Planet Money, we know that economic jargon can sometimes feel like speaking another language.

[Unknown Speaker]

Yeah, like I'll be talking about arbitrage, Alpha, otarchy.

That's just what's in the news these days.

[Domenico Montanaro]

There's also absolute advantage.

[Rebecca Hersher]

Aggregate demand, aggregate supply.

[Unknown Speaker]

And this is just the A's.

[Rebecca Hersher]

Oh, animal spirits.

[Unknown Speaker]

That's a pretty good one. Planet Money from npr. We help you translate the economy so you can understand the world wherever you get your podcasts.

[Tamara Keith]

And we're back. And I want to broaden things out a little bit, whether disasters are becoming more and more frequent. Flooding, hurricanes, wildfires. Is FEMA and federal funding, as it has worked in the past, designed to handle a constant state of disasters like we've been seeing in the past several years?

[Rebecca Hersher]

I mean, no, not as it currently exists. You know, that's according to FEMA itself. You know, the head of FEMA under the Biden administration asked Congress to make changes to help make it easier for fema, for example, to get money into the hands of state and local governments more quickly, because the agency is dealing with these back to back to back to back disasters every year, and they're always running out of money. So I think basically all disaster experts agree that FEMA as it is currently set up, really doesn't work with climate change. The question is about how to fix it. You know, there are two bills in Congress right now that would basically streamline the process for FEMA to push out money. I think most experts agree that one problem is just that it's too complicated. There's, like too much paperwork. But, you know, what the President has said that he wants to do is sort of take a different tack, which is just get rid of the agency, give that responsibility to the states instead. And I think that's something that gives a lot of state emergency managers some heartburn, because the reality is that disasters are too expensive for most states to handle on their own. You know, just removing debris can cost millions of dollars. Like, these are really, really big events. And if you're a really big state, you might be able to find most of the money. But most of the states that get hit with these things over and over, you know, think of like the states on the Gulf coast. They do not have the budget to handle this. And so, you know, people are worried if you get rid of fema, who could plug that hole? And honestly, like, could it mean lost lives? Because if you don't respond to a disaster in a timely way, you don't get to get that back later. Right?

[Tamara Keith]

Yeah. And Domenico, we've talked about this but states have to balance their budgets. Yeah, the federal government is often in the position of Congress having to approve emergency funds to replenish the disaster recovery funds.

[Domenico Montanaro]

And I mean, one way that people look at this is, you know, we're talking about multimillion dollars in cleanup costs. But there have been a humongous increase in billion dollar disasters. I mean, if you look back to 1980, there was something like $58 billion in billion dollar disaster events. It's an incredible amount of money. But we're talk talking the last couple of years, half a trillion or more in the amount of money that the federal government and local governments have had to spend. It's an incredible increase. And it's an agency that just is not funded to that extent to be able to keep up with, frankly, what's happening in climate change.

[Tamara Keith]

So Rebecca, realizing that we are in a situation where there isn't a huge amount of clarity, is there a sense of whether states are equipped to prepare for future disasters, whether states are able to do the mitigation in advance to prevent the loss of life or to reduce the impact of potential natural disasters?

[Rebecca Hersher]

I would say, you know, even though we don't know a lot about what the future holds for FEMA as a whole, this is an area where we probably know the most. And that's just because the Trump administration already cut like the biggest grant program that was funneling federal dollars to those kinds of projects. And that program, it had more than a billion dollars in the pot. It was pushing money out into basically every state in the country. It was canceled in the spring. And there has been a huge backlash from places that voted for the president and from places that did not. These are towns and cities, tribal governments that were planning to do all kinds of things, including things that are relevant to the disaster we just saw. So like communities that are flood prone, who were going to use this money to install warning systems, who were going to upgrade drainage, who were going to build flood walls, like that kind of pre disaster preparation is something that the federal government has invested very heavily in in the last decade. And so cutting that program actually like kind of cut people off at the knees. Texas as a whole was one of the top states that received grants under this program. It's unclear how much of that would have gone to the Hill country in particular. None of it would have gone to the most affected county. In particular, that county was trying to use state dollars to do their flood warning system upgrade. And I think it's unclear what the future holds for that type of money. Will the Trump administration create a new program under a new version of fema? I think there's quite a bit of lobbying to try to create something like that, but so far that money is gone.

[Tamara Keith]

All right. Well, Rebecca Hersher, thank you so much for sharing your reporting with us.

[Rebecca Hersher]

Thank you so much.

[Tamara Keith]

I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House.

[Domenico Montanaro]

I'm Domenico Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent.

[Tamara Keith]

And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics podcast Foreign.

[Unknown Speaker]

You're listening to NPR because you're curious. You want to know what the world is like beyond the surface. NPR feeds that curiosity with stories from real people, with real experiences and all the perspectives that come with them. It's our right to be curious and our prerogative to listen. So keep your curiosity alive. Hear the bigger picture every day on npr.

You know those things you shout at the radio or maybe even at this very NPR podcast? On NPR's Wait, Wait, don't tell me. We actually say those things on the radio and on the podcast. We're rude across all media. We think the news can take it. Listen to NPR's Wait, Wait, don't tell me. Wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, everybody, it's Ian from How to Do Everything. On our show, we attempt to answer your how to questions. We don't know how to do anything, so we call experts. Last season, both Tom Hanks and Martha Stewart stopped by to help. Our next season is launching in just a few months, so get us your questions now by emailing howtopr.org or calling 1-800-424-2935.